@dfr Noticed that the images you are pushing to dockerhub are docker images and not OCI. Is this intended? For example official ubuntu images are pushed as OCI images.

https://hub.docker.com/r/dougrabson/freebsd-minimal/tags

Not sure - I'm just building them using 'buildah mount' and 'buildah commit', using FreeBSD packaging tools to install things into the images.

How do I tell that they are docker images, not OCI? I don't see the difference when I compare one of my images with e.g. library/ubuntu using skopeo.

@dfr There are many tools. For example,

https://github.com/google/go-containerregistry/tree/main/cmd/crane

crane manifest <image> | jq .

$ crane manifest dougrabson/freebsd-minimal:13.2 | jq .

{
  "schemaVersion": 2,
  "mediaType": "application/vnd.docker.distribution.manifest.list.v2+json",

In comparison, ubuntu

$ crane manifest ubuntu:latest | jq .

{
  "manifests": [
    {
      "digest": "sha256:c9cf959fd83770dfdefd8fb42cfef0761432af36a764c077aed54bbc5bb25368",
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      

@dfr So you are pushing docker images to dockerhub. Not sure if this was intentional - from what I understand, FreeBSD is standardizing on OCI?

This is strange - I pushed the same image to both docker.io and quay.io but the manifest type on dockerhub is different.

$ crane manifest docker.io/dougrabson/freebsd13.2-static:13.2p2 | jq .
{
  "schemaVersion": 2,
  "mediaType": "application/vnd.docker.distribution.manifest.list.v2+json",
  "manifests": [
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "size": 1130,
      "digest": "sha256:4378443a2023c8804997bca2f5e8c33944085e2102e192af0dcea943053b59bb",
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "amd64",
        "os": "freebsd"
      }
    },
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "size": 1132,
      "digest": "sha256:cc62ec2301fdfab24d0e3976ff86ba16938ead54d638acdee1436d3ff5a3c1f9",
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "arm64",
        "os": "freebsd"
      }
    }
  ]
}

$ crane manifest quay.io/dougrabson/freebsd13.2-static:13.2p2 | jq .
{
  "schemaVersion": 2,
  "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.index.v1+json",
  "manifests": [
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "digest": "sha256:4378443a2023c8804997bca2f5e8c33944085e2102e192af0dcea943053b59bb",
      "size": 1130,
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "amd64",
        "os": "freebsd"
      }
    },
    {
      "mediaType": "application/vnd.oci.image.manifest.v1+json",
      "digest": "sha256:cc62ec2301fdfab24d0e3976ff86ba16938ead54d638acdee1436d3ff5a3c1f9",
      "size": 1132,
      "platform": {
        "architecture": "arm64",
        "os": "freebsd"
      }
    }
  ]
}

@dfr

Ah I see. So you are pushing a multi-arch image index (which is docker media-type) but the individual image manifests in that image index are all OCI.

Perhaps your buildah (if that is what you are using) version needs to be a more recent one. There are some known breakages with older versions.
containers/buildah#4395

buildah push --all -f oci ...

The image manifests above were built with buildah-1.31.0 which is after the bug you linked was fixed, as far as I can tell. Thanks for the link though - next time I push things to dockerhub and quay.io, I'll use the most recent buildah release and see if that helps.

@dfr do you have an anticipated time frame for an official freebsd image release? Asking so we can coordinate our release window accordingly if possible.

I can't give a very clear answer but conservatively, Q1 2024 is quite possible. One of the main blocking factors should be resolved with the upcoming 14.0 FreeBSD release and I plan to work with the release engineers after that to integrate my image building scripts into their process.

@dfr FYI, 2.0.0-rc7 released.

https://github.com/project-zot/project-zot.github.io/blob/main/docs/general/whats-new.md
^ docs preview.